• Was Jesus nice to women?

    I’ve been thinking about that gospel reading that we had on Sunday all week.

    Here at St Mary’s I read the central part of the reading, the dialogue with the woman at the well as a dialogue between my voice and that of a female member of the congregation. You learn new things by the way you perform scripture. I found myself feeling more uncomfortable reading the words of Jesus to a woman who was standing there responding than I would had I just read the whole of the gospel out in my own voice.

    ‘Go, call your husband, and come back.’
    ‘I have no husband.’
    ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!’

    How did it feel to be on the receiving end of that?

    It made me wonder whether again whether Jesus was nice to women and how I can know.

    There is a view that is fairly common that Jesus was better than most men at the time because he spoke to women and the culture he lived in was not one in which women and men could normally converse. This is a relatively common reading of Jesus’s dealings with women, particularly by liberals.

    I would parrot that view were it not for a conference I went on a few years ago when a feminist orthodox Jewish scholar made the case that this is an antisemitic reading of scripture and that Jewish culture then as now was one in which men and women could converse, do business and make friends. Imagining a world which is particularly negative for women and placing an imagined Jesus in the middle of it who seems to have more liberal values is a way of denegrating the culture and sociological surroundings that he had.

    That gospel reading does provide some fuel for this negative reading of Jewish culture of the time with the line:

    Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, ‘What do you want?’

    However, one can counter that by saying – well, John’s gospel is the most uneasy of the gospels when it comes to affirming the Jewish tradition that Jesus came out of. Perhaps this is an early Christian slur against Jewish life alongside a lot of other negative language about “the Jews” in that gospel.

    It often strikes me that we want to believe in a Jesus who was nice and who by implication will like us and like our own mores, presumptions and even peccadillos.

    Scripture doesn’t always help us to maintain that view.

    Was Jesus nice to women? Can you answer this in the affirmative without denegrating the culture he came from?

    And for a side discussion – what are the issues around giving this picture to children to illustrate the tale?

    jesus-with-the-samaritan-woman-at-the-well - small

5 responses to “Five Thoughts On Losing Elections (and a referendum)”

  1. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    Thank you; this was a good and helpful piece to read on a day when, in all likelihood, those of us in the USA who have been endeavoring to restore justice and truth to our Presidency are going to be informed that we’ve failed.

  2. Helen Dean Avatar
    Helen Dean

    Great message. We also need people who are prepared to lose for the right reasons even if they never win.

  3. Jackie Heatlie Avatar
    Jackie Heatlie

    Truly, huge common sense in this. Never let go of ‘Radical Hope’!

  4. Marie Craig Avatar
    Marie Craig

    I second that!

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Yes but. The rain, it raineth every day/upon the just and unjust fella/ but it raineth more upon the just/for the unjust hath the just’s umbrella. It is hugely much easier to win if you feel free to say what you know to be
    popular. If you feel free to discount the complex for the always simple. I know this because over the years I have tried to explain, variously, that a nation’s economy does not work in the exact same way as a household budget, and that trade agreements between countries are not as simple as selling goods at a church sale of work. Or, to put it another way, the huge medical success of the last fifty (plus) years has been vaccination. A short discomfort, a huge level of success. That has not prevented the anti vaccine lobby having huge success in persuading people that an exceptionally safe procedure is seriously dangerous. And at least some of the pro vaccine propaganda has been slick and professional (witness the latest row on TicTok)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 1 June 2008

    [audio:Sermon 1 June 2008.mp3] For audio, click the icon above. Text below. Usual disclaimers. I didn’t say what the text says. Here it is: I don’t preach on St Paul very often, but this seems to me to be important this week, so I am going to preach on the second of our readings, from…

  • Pre-Synod Meeting

    Crossed to the dark south side of the city last night for our pre-synod meeting. This is where General Synod members from the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway go through the synod agenda and mull it over before actually going to synod to do the business in a fortnight. This year promises to be quite…

  • Differences in Demolitions

    I was faced with a choice tonight. To the opera or to the Baths Club AGM. (It is that old monastery/deerpark conundrum from Mr Søren Churchyard all over again, isn’t it?). This time I chose pleasure over duty and went to the opera to see Nigel Osborne’s, Differences in Demolitions. There was some tremendous singing…

  • Shared Sleeper

    I’m horrified to hear that there is a proposal to end the shared sleeper service from Scotland to London. This is a terrible thing. The shared sleeper is a cheap way to get home after a show in London. It is far greener to have a carriage occupied by 24 slumbering souls than 12. And…